EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)

Introduction

EPIC has challenged the use of airport body scanners since they were first tested and introduced by the TSA in the mid 2000s. First, EPIC sued to obtain records outlining the invasive screening capabilities, potential health risks, and traveler complaints logged by the TSA. Then, in 2011, EPIC successfully sued to require the Department of Homeland Security to undertake a public notice on and comment rulemaking on the use of body scanners in U.S. airports. EPIC argued that "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers" and the D.C. Circuit agreed. The court ordered the agency to "promptly" undertake notice and comment rulemaking, allowing the public to comment on the body scanner program.

The TSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in March 2013. EPIC then filed extensive comments opposing the TSA's proposed body scanner rule. The agency subsequently issued a notice modifying the airport scanning procedures that claims the authority deny passengers the ability to opt-out of the bodyscanners. Then, in March 2016, the TSA issued the final body scanner rule. EPIC filed suit in May 2016, challenging the final rule. The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case, EPIC v. TSA, No. 16-1139, on April 7, 2017.

EPIC Urges Senate to Block Biometric Collection At US Airports: EPIC has sent a statement to the Senate Commerce Committee following a hearing on the Transportation Security Administration. EPIC urged the Committee to limit the collection of biometric data at US airports. EPIC described the growing and regulated use of biometrics in US airports, often targeting US citizens. EPIC previous pursued a significant lawsuit against the TSA to limit the use of body scanners. EPIC is currently seeking records from Customs and Border Protection concerning the agency's use of facial recognition for a biometric entry/exit program at airports. EPIC has also objected to a proposal to increase the collection of biometric data for the TSA Pre-Check program. (Sep. 28, 2017)

The TSA is considering a requirement to remove books from carry-on luggage for inspection during security screenings. The procedure raises concerns that individuals may be singled out for their religious and political beliefs, implicating core First Amendment values. In 2015 a college student won a $25,000 settlement after he was detained by the TSA for carrying Arabic flash cards. EPIC has pursued litigation against invasive airport screening techniques. In EPIC v. DHS, EPIC successfully sued to require the Department of Homeland Security to obtain public comment on the use of body scanners in U.S. airports. The litigation also led to the removal the backscatter x-ray devices from airports. EPIC recently filed a FOIA request to determine why US travelers returning to the United States are subject to biometric identification. In numerous cases, including a recent case before the US Supreme Court, EPIC has argued for the freedom to without government surveillance.

In a cursory per curium opinion, the D.C. Circuit denied EPIC's petition for review of the TSA's final rule mandating body scanners in U.S. airports. EPIC argued in EPIC v. DHS II that the TSA had failed to justify body scanners as compared with less invasive, more effective screening techniques, such as magnometers combined with explosive trace detection. Public comments overwhelmingly favored EPIC's recommendations to the federal agency. EPIC also argued that the TSA's decision to end the opt-out was contrary to the DC Circuit's earlier opinion EPIC v. DHS I which held that passengers could opt-out of the invasive screening technique. As Judge Ginsburg explained in the earlier case, "Despite the precautions taken by the TSA, it is clear that by producing an image of the unclothed passenger, an AIT scanner intrudes upon his or her personal privacy in a way a magnetometer does not." Judge Ginsburg further said, "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive."

EPIC has sent a statement to the House Committee on Homeland Security for an oversight hearing on the Transportation Security Administration. EPIC has objected to the TSA's refusal to release information the agency designated as "sensitive security information" that is pertinent to EPIC's ongoing case against TSA regarding airport body scanners. EPIC said that the TSA is "seeking to hide its decision making behind this cloak of secrecy." Congress also criticized the TSA's use of the SSI designation in an extensive report on "Pseudo Classification." In the statement for the Committee, EPIC also objected to the eye scanning of US travelers at US airports.

EPIC has sent a letter to the House Committee on Oversight for a hearing on the Transportation Security Administration. EPIC has objected to the TSA's refusal to release information designated as "sensitive security information" that is pertinent to EPIC's ongoing case against TSA regarding airport body scanners. EPIC said that "seeking to hide its decision making behind this cloak of secrecy." The House Committee has also criticized the agency's use of the SSI designation. EPIC also raised concerns about the eye scanning of US travelers at US airports as well as the TSA's statement that they will no longer accept drivers licenses from states that oppose "REAL ID".

EPIC has filed the opening brief in EPIC v. TSA II with the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, challenging the Transportation Security Administration's continued use of body scanners in US airports. TSA issued a regulation mandating the use of body scanners across the country more than five years after the court in EPIC v. TSA ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial body scanners program and nearly a decade after the agency deployed the scanners without public comments. EPIC told the court that the TSA's regulation entrenches body scanners over more effective less intrusive screening techniques, and undermines the legal right of passengers to opt out. EPIC wrote that the TSA has failed to "justify the use of invasive screening techniques, or to provide the public with an opportunity to respond to the denial of the passenger opt-out right."

EPIC has filed a lawsuit challenging the Transportation Security Administration's regulation for airport body scanners. The TSA announcement came nearly five years after a federal appeals court ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial screening procedure. Public commentsoverwhelmingly favored less invasive security screenings. But the TSA decided it may now mandate body scanners at US airports. In 2011, EPIC challenged the intrusive and ineffective TSA screening procedure. EPIC's new lawsuit challenges the regulation because it "denies passengers the right to opt out" of body scanner screening. EPIC also challenged the effectiveness of airport body scanners and the TSA's failure to recommend less invasive security screening.

In response to an EPIC FOIA request, the Transportation Security Administration has released a document describing the technical capabilities of the airport body scanners. EPIC previously obtained documents from TSA revealing that body scanners can record, store, and transmit digital strip search images of airline passengers. Last month, the TSA issued a regulation on airport body scanners, nearly five years after a federal appeals court ordered the agency to "promptly” undertake a rule making. In 2011, EPIC successfully challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Despite public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings, the TSA plans to use invasive body scanners at US airports. The TSA also said it may mandate airport body scanners, even though the agency previously told the D.C. Circuit that the body scanner program was optional and the federal appeals court upheld the program, relying on the agency’s statements.

The Transportation Security Administration has issued a final rule on airport body scanners, nearly five years after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit public comments on the controversial scanners. In 2011, EPIC successfully challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Despite public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings, the agency will continue to use invasive body scanners at airports. The agency also states that it may mandate airport body scanners. EPIC and 25 organizations have urged Congress to hold a hearing on TSA's decision to end the opt-out for airport body scanners. The agency previously informed the D.C. Circuit that the body scanner program was optional. The Court concluded because "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown" there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

EPIC and 25 organizations have urged Congress to hold a hearing on TSA's decision to end the opt-out for airport body scanners. Dozens of organizations petitioned the DHS secretary in 2010 to solicit public comments on the original program. In EPIC v. DHS the lawsuit that followed, the D.C. Circuit ruled that TSA violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports without public comment. The agency said at the time that the body scanner program was optional. The Court also concluded because "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown" there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The TSA has used a "Privacy Impact Assessment Update" to announce an unlawful procedure for screening air travelers in the United States. The agency claims that it may "mandate body scanner screening for some passengers." In EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the screening was Constitutional because passengers could always opt out. As Judge Ginsburg explained, "any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive. "The TSA has also failed to "act promptly," as the Court mandated, to finalize the legal authority for the program.

The Transportation Security Administration is expected to issue a final rule on airport body scanners by March 3, 2016, nearly five years after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to "promptly" solicit pubic comments on the controversial scanners. In 2011, EPIC successful challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of airport body scanners. Following EPIC's lawsuit, backscatter x-ray devices were removed from U.S. airports. Still, the agency continues to ignore public comments that overwhelmingly favor less invasive security screenings.

The Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit today ordered TSA to comply with the ruling in EPIC v. DHS and conduct an "expeditious" rulemaking on the use of body scanners at airports. EPIC successfully sued TSA in 2011 to compel notice-and-comment rulemaking after the agency failed to solicit public comments as required by law. EPIC said the body scanner program was "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." The backscatter x-ray devices were subsequently removed from U.S. airports, though the millimeter devices remain. In 2015 the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a petition to compel TSA to issue a final rule as required by the EPIC v. DHS mandate. TSA now has 30 days to submit a rulemaking plan to the court.

The first independent analysis of backscatter x-ray body scanners corroborate the claims EPIC and others have made for several years: The scanners are invasive and ineffective. In a detailed report published in 2005, EPIC warned that the x-ray body scanners amounted to a virtual strip search and were an ineffective means of airport security. Freedom of Information Act documents later obtained by EPIC revealed that TSA could disable the body scanner's privacy settings, the nude images could be stored on the machines, and the scanners ran on a standard operating system making them vulnerable to outside security threats. EPIC and a coalition of civil liberties organizations then petitioned DHS Secretary Napolitano to suspend the program. When the DHS failed to do so, EPIC sued the agency. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in EPIC v. DHS that the agency must begin a public rule making. The backscatter X-ray scanners were subsequently removed from US airports. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has challenged a District Court decision which allowed two federal agencies to withhold documents about airport body scanners, including test results, fact sheets, and estimates regarding radiation risks. In the opening brief to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, EPIC argues that federal agencies may not withhold factual information under the "deliberative process privilege" in the Freedom of Information Act. EPIC said that under "under the standard adopted by the lower court, not only would the judgement of agency officials be exempt, but so too would reports or studies of any significance." For more information, see EPIC: DHS Body Scanner FOIA Appeal, EPIC v. DHS and EPIC v. TSA.

The Transportation Security Administration has expanded its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program to perform warrantless searches at various locations, including festivals, sporting events, and bus stations. The VIPR program uses "risk-based" profiling and "behavior detection" to search and detain individuals. Members of Congress have opposed these searches, and the GAO has questioned the validity of TSA's behavior detection and dispelled behavior detection effectiveness. Last year, EPIC prevailed in a lawsuit against the TSA that revealed the agency's plan to deploy body scanners outside of the airport at bus stations, train stations, and elsewhere. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Mobile Body Scanners FOIA Lawsuit).

EPIC has submitted extensive comments opposing the TSA's decision to deploy body scanners in US airports. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals forced TSA to accept public comment on the controversial screening program following EPIC's lawsuit in EPIC v. DHS. In that case, EPIC successfully challenged the TSA's unlawful deployment of the body scanners which rendered images of air travelers stripped naked. More than 5,000 comments were submitted by the public, many on behalf of organizations and associations, and almost all opposed the agency's decision. EPIC's comments described the lack of adequate privacy safeguards for the backscatter x-ray scanners, the ineffectiveness of the devices, and the potential health risks to travelers. EPIC urged the agency to end the body scanner program and instead use noninvasive walk through metal detector and explosive trace detection devices. The agency has already removed hundreds of backscatter devices from US airports. EPIC brought the lawsuit after earlier EPIC FOIA lawsuitsuncovereddocuments that revealed the devices were capable of storing and recording images of naked air travelers. For more information, see EPIC: Comment on the TSA Nude Body Scanner Proposal.

The TSA has completed removal of the x-ray body scanners from US airports. The devices revealed detailed images of a person's naked body and have been described as "digital strip searches." The TSA action follows an Act of Congress and several lawsuits by EPIC. The TSA was forced to remove the machines after Congress required that the devices produce only generic image. And as result of EPIC v. TSA the TSA is currently required to accept public comments on its airport screening procedures. The public has until June 24, 2013 to voice its opinions. The millimeter wave devices remain in US airports. For more information, see: EPIC: Comment on the TSA Nude Body Scanner Proposal and EPIC: ATR lawsuit.

Backscatter x-ray machines show detailed images of a person's naked body and have been described as "digital strip searches."

The Transportation Security Administration was forced to disclose additional information regarding the Agency's controversial body scanner program after EPIC prevailed in a lawsuit against the Agency. In March 2013, Judge Royce Lamberth held that the Agency had unlawfully redacted certain information from records released to EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act containing details on software modifications made to the scanners. In response to a separate lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security regarding the Agency's authority to deploy the devices, the TSA has initiated a process to allow the public to comment on the program. EPIC is recommending that the TSA adopt more effective screening procedures. For more information, see and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

The TSA announced today that it will begin a public comment process on its airport screening procedures. The action follows from a 2011 court order in EPIC v. DHS. In that case, the Federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit found that the agency unlawfully deployed body scanners in US airports. In a proposed two-sentence change to the agency's extensive regulations, the TSA seeks to grant itself authority to continue to deploy Nude Body Scanners ("NBS") without establishing privacy safeguards. EPIC, which brought the successful challenging to the TSA program, is urging public comment on the agency proposal. EPIC is recommending that the TSA adopt more effective screening procedures. If the TSA continues with Nude Body Scanner program, EPIC said the agency should make clear the right of individuals to opt-out as well as require privacy filters for all devices. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

A federal judge has granted EPIC victories in two Freedom of Information Act cases involving the controversial airport body scanners. Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC held that the Department of Homeland Security must turn over two safety reports detailing radiation output by the scanners and a set of power point slides containing details on automated target recognition software. The agency previously claimed it was not required to release the documents to EPIC. EPIC has pursued several related Freedom of Information Act cases as a challenge to the deployment of the devices. In 2011, the DC Circuit of Appeals ruled in EPIC v. DHS that the agency must receive public comments on the decision to deploy body scanners for primary screening. For more information see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

In response to an EPIC FOIA request, the Department of Homeland Security has released documents about the use of body scanners by the US Secret Service. EPIC sought information about the types of images that body scanners capture, the length of time the images can be stored, and safeguards for maintaining the integrity and security of the captured images. EPIC also asked about radiation body scanner radiation risks. EPIC received the contract of sale between the Government and Rapiscan, the body scanner manufacturer; and the Secret Service’s training manuals for instructing new recruits on the operation of body scanners. The training materials make no mention of data privacy. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Body Scanners.

The US Transportation Security Administration will end the contract for backscatter x-ray devices. As a consequence, all devices that produce a detailed naked image of air travelers will be removed from US airports. Beginning in 2005, EPIC and then a coalition of privacy advocates, scientists, legal experts and lawmakers urged the TSA not to deploy the devices. The groups petitioned DHS Secretary Napolitano to suspend the program pending a thorough review. The agency went forward and EPIC sued. In EPIC v. DHS, the DC Circuit held that the devices could be used as long as passengers were able to opt-out. The federal appeals court also ordered the agency to "promptly" begin a public rulemaking. That process will likely begin in March 2013. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Body Scanners.

After years of pressure from political leaders, civil liberties and health advocates, including EPIC, there will be an independent review of the health risks posed by backscatter x-ray devices. A National Academy of Sciences committee will assess “whether exposures comply with applicable health and safety standards” for passengers and airport employees. The study is limited to radiation and safety testing, and will not examine the privacy implications or effectiveness of the x-ray machines. In 2012, both the House and the Senate introduced legislation calling for an independent assessment of the controversial devices. Europe has also effectively banned the use of backscatter X-ray devices. EPIC has a FOIA lawsuit against DHS concerning body scanner radiation risks. In response to another EPIC lawsuit, the agency will begin a public comment process on the airport screening program in March 2013. For more information see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners.

Earlier this year, the TSA indicated that it would no longer purchase backscatter x-ray devices for deployment in US airports. A news story this week confirms that the TSA has ceased buying the "Whole Body Imaging" devices and is actively replacing them with millimeter wave scanners, a less intrusive but also controversial scanning technology. EPIC sued the Department of Homeland Security to force disclosure of technical documents about the body scanner program. In a subsequent lawsuit, EPIC v. DHS, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals determined that air travellers have a right to opt-out of the body scanner screening and that the TSA must undertake a notice and comment rulemaking. In the most recent decision, the Court has ordered the agency to begin the public comment process by March 2013. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners and EPIC; EPIC v. DHS (suspension of airport body scanners).

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has issued a ruling on EPIC's recent petition regarding the controversial body scanner program. EPIC had urged the court to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin a public comment process or suspend the program. The agency said it might "finalize documents" by February 2013. The court said it expected the agency to begin the process before the end of March 2013. In July 2011 the court ordered the agency to "promptly" begin the process. For more information, see: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

A federal district court has awarded EPIC attorneys fees and costs in EPIC v. DHS, No, 11-945, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in the disclosure of information about the agency's plan to deploy body scanners at bus stations, train stations, and elsewhere. The court found that EPIC had "substantially prevailed" in the FOIA lawsuit and that "EPIC has demonstrated a public benefit arising from the disclosed records." EPIC has several related FOIA lawsuits concerning new systems of mass surveillance. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Mobile Body Scanners FOIA Lawsuit).

EPIC has filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court, arguing that new "investigative techniques should be subject to close scrutiny by the courts." EPIC submitted the brief in Florida v. Harris, a case involving a car search in response to an "alert" by a drug detection dog. The Florida Supreme Court held that a law enforcement agent relying on such an "alert" must produce evidence to support the reliability of the detection technique. Filing in support of the Florida decision, EPIC argued that new investigative techniques, such as terahertz scanners, airport body scanners, and digital intercept devices, raise similar concerns about reliability. EPIC described a growing consensus among legal scholars and technical experts about the need to improve the reliability of many forensic techniques. "The 'perfect search,'" EPIC wrote, "like the 'infallible dog,' is a null set." For more information, see EPIC: Florida v. Harris and EPIC: Florida v. Jardines.

At approximately 11:30 am EDT, the White House removed a petition about the TSA airport screening procedures from the White House "We the People" website. About 22,500 of the 25,000 signatures necessary for a response from the Administration were obtained when the White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition. The site also went down for "maintenance" following an article in Wired that sought support for the campaign.

A petition, posted at the White House website "We The People," urging the Transportation Security Agency to "Follow the Law!" has received more than 20,000 signatures. If 25,000 people sign the petition before August 9, 2012, the White House will respond.The petition asks President Obama to force the Transportation Security Administration to begin the public comment process on the controversial airport body scanner program, as the agency was ordered to do by a federal court more than a year ago. For more information see EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanners).

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ordered the DHS to respond to EPIC's mandamus petition to "enforce the court's mandate" by August 30. EPIC filed the "extraordinary writ" after a year had passed since the federal agency was ordered to begin a public rulemaking on the controversial airport body scanner program. A coalition of organizations, led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed an amicus brief in support of the EPIC petition and a separate petition to the White House has gathered more than 16,000 signatures. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (suspension of airport body scanners).

A petition posted at the White House website "We the People" urging the Transportation Security Agency to "Follow the Law!" has received more than 15,000 signatures. If 25,000 people sign the petition before August 9, 2012, the White House will respond. The petition asks President Obama to force the TSA to begin the public comment process on the controversial airport body scanner program, as the agency was ordered to do by a federal court more than a year ago. For more information see EPIC v. DHS (suspension of airport body scanners).

EPIC has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the TSA, seeking documents about whether the agency actually intends to give the public the opportunity to comment on the controversial body scanner program. One year has passed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to "act promptly" and undertake a public notice-and-comment rulemaking. The agency has not done so but claims to be working on it. In a separate Petition for Mandamus EPIC asked the Court to require the agency to issue a proposed rule within 60 days or suspend the program. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (airport body scanners).

EPIC has filed a mandamus petition with the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to require the beginning of a public comment process on the controversial airport body scanner program. One year has passed since the Court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to "act promptly" to undertake the action demanded by EPIC, but the agency has taken no action. In the petition, EPIC said that the agency's delay poses risks to travelers, defies the Court's authority, and is unlawful. EPIC asked the court to require that the federal agency receive public comments within 60 days or that it suspend the program. (Mandamus Appendix). For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (airport body scanners).

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General has completed an investigation into the effectiveness of the body scanner program as deployed in airports as a primary passenger screening system. The unclassified summary of the report notes that several vulnerabilities were found in the program, which has already cost more than $87 million. The full report consists of "Sensitive Security Information" (SSI) and will not be released to the public, according to the Inspector General. EPIC has challenged the SSI designation, arguing that it is an improper standard for classification. The Government Accountability Office, technical experts, Members of Congress, and bloggers have also questioned the effectiveness of the devices. In a federal lawsuit, EPIC challenged the body scanner program, calling it "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of body scanners).

Both the House and the Senate introduced bills last month that would require the Department of Homeland Security "to contract with an independent laboratory to study the health effects of backscatter x-ray machines used at airline checkpoints operated by the Transportation Security Administration," and to provide improved notice of the health effects to airline passengers. The bills focus on the health effects of those screened by the backscatter x-ray machines, including frequent air travelers, flight crews, and individuals with greater sensitivity to radiation, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, and cancer patients. In 2010, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit asking a court to force the Department of Homeland Security to disclose documents about radiation testing results and agency fact sheets on radiation risks. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks.

In celebration of Sunshine Week, EPIC published the EPIC FOIA Gallery: 2012. The gallery highlights key documents obtained by EPIC in the past year, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's watch list guidelines, records of the Department of Homeland Security's social media monitoring program, Google's first Privacy Compliance Report, records detailing the government's FAST scanning program, records of the FBI's surveillance of Wikileaks supporters, and DHS records detailing the use of body scanners at the U.S. border. EPIC regularly files Freedom of Information Act requests and pursues lawsuits to force disclosure of critical documents that impact privacy. EPIC also publishes the authoritative FOIA litigation manual. For more, see EPIC Open Government and EPIC Bookstore: FOIA.

A popular video "How To Get Anything Through TSA Nude Body Scanners" show that it is easy to bypass airport body scanners by hiding materials perpendicular to the plane of the scanning devices. The video also notes that traditional metal detectors, now being removed from US airports, would routinely alert to the presence of metallic objects. Still more interesting may be the recent blog post by a 25-year FBI agent, expert in aviation security, who writes that the "TSA has never foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner" and that "the entire TSA paradigm is flawed." In a federal lawsuit, EPIC challenged the TSA airport scanner program, calling it "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of body scanners).

In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request, Customs and Border Protection has disclosed nearly 1,000 pages of documents on automated license plate readers and border body scanners. The documents include contracts with several companies, such as Rapiscan and L3, for vehicle and cargo screening x-ray devices. Previous documents obtained by EPIC revealed that the agency is developing integrated vehicle scanners, with backscatter x-ray, Closed Circuit Television, and automated license plate readers, that would be used with human subjects. Radiation experts have questioned the safety of these systems, which produce ionizing radiation. For more information see EPIC FOIA: Automated License Plate Readers and Border Checkpoint Body Scanners.

The US Supreme Court has decided to reviewFlorida v. Jardines, a case that addresses whether a dog sniff at the front door of a home is a search that requires probable cause. This case follows Illinois v. Caballes, a 2005 case in which the Court held that a dog sniff around a car during a routine traffic stop was not a search. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Caballes was inapplicable in the case, and that a dog sniff in front of a home is a Fourth Amendment search. This case also implicates the government's use of "enhanced" investigative techniques that are designed to detect contraband. Because these techniques are imperfect and also allow the government to search for material that is not illegal, EPIC has argued that a Fourth Amendment probable cause standard should apply. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Airport Body Scanners).

EPIC has asked a federal court seeking to enforce a July 15, 2011 order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to take public comment on the agency's controversial airport body scanner program. As a result of an EPIC lawsuit, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening without first soliciting public input. In July, the Court ordered Homeland Security to "promptly" seek public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. EPIC, and a coalition of privacy and civil liberties organizations, first petitioned DHS to undertake a public rulemaking in 2009. This is EPIC's second motion to compel the agency to comply with the court's order. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has filed a reply motion in EPIC v. DHS, No. 1:11-cv-01991-ABJ, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for information, held by the DHS, about the radiation risks of airport body scanners. EPIC is asking the court to force the agency to disclose documents about radiation testing results, agency fact sheets on radiation risks, and an image produced by the machines. A recent report from ProPublica states that the "U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray," and the European Union recently prohibited the use of "back-scatter x-ray" devices in EU airports. EPIC has already obtained hundreds of pages of documents discussing the risks of radiation exposure. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks.

Republican Members of Congress have released "A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform," a staff report examining the effectiveness of the Transportation Security Administration, which was formed shortly after the September 11th attacks. The Report blasted the failure of the TSA to improve aviation security while spending billions dollars on ineffective equipment and programs including airport body scanners that are "easily thwarted." Over 30,800 people have signed a petition to the White House to abolish the TSA. The Obama Administration has promised to formally respond to any petition that receives 25,000 signatures (formerly 5,000). In a lawsuit filed by EPIC, a federal appellate court found that the TSA had violated the law by deploying full-body scanners at airports nationwide without first soliciting public comment. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners.

The European Union has adopted strict new guidelines limiting the use of body scanners at EU airports. Under the new guidelines, European Union member states may only deploy airport body scanners if they comply with new regulations that protect health, privacy, and fundamental rights. The European Commission has also prohibited any devices that store, record, or transfer images of travelers as well as devices that display an image of the naked human body. As a result, backscatter x-ray devices are now effectively prohibited in airports in the European Union. The European Commission has also made clear that passengers may not be required to go through body scanners, following the conclusion reached by the federal appellate court in the United States in the EPIC v. DHS case, which held that passengers have a legal right to opt-out of body scanners. The body scanners have not done well during trials in Europe. Most recently a test in Germany found that the devices were ineffective. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of the Body Scanner Program).

EPIC has filed a motion for summary judgment in EPIC v. DHS, No. 1:11-cv-01991-ABJ, a pending Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the radiation risks posed by body scanners. EPIC has asked the court to force the agency to disclose documents containing radiation testing results, agency fact sheets on body scanner radiation risks, and an image produced by the machines. A new report from ProPublica states that the "U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray." EPIC has already obtained hundreds of pages of documents detailing the radiation risks presented by the machines. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and Radiation Risks (FOIA).

EPIC filed papers in federal court today seeking to enforce an order that requires the Department of Homeland Security to detail the agency's controversial airport body scanner program. As a result of the EPIC lawsuit, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening without first soliciting public comment. In July, the Court ordered Homeland Security to "promptly" seek public comment, but the agency has failed to respond. EPIC, and a coalition of privacy and civil liberties organizations, first petitioned DHS to undertake a public rulemaking in 2009. EPIC's subsequent lawsuit alleged that airport body scanners are "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has uncovered more complaints from travelers about the TSA airport body scanners. In response to a FOIA request, the federal agency turned over 241 pages of passenger complaints about body scanners to EPIC. The documents reveal that travelers are angry and frustrated about TSA screening procedures. Travelers expressed concern about radiation risks to children, the elderly, and those with special needs. Other travelers wrote the fact that the machines could capture naked images as unacceptable. One traveler said, "using [the full body scanners] is an extreme invasion of privacy." EPIC previously obtained hundreds of pages of complaints (sample) after filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Agency. Earlier this year, in EPIC v. DHS, EPIC also obtained a judgment from the federal appeals court in Washington, requiring the TSA to conduct a public rulemaking on the program and ensuring that passengers have a right to opt-out. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has filed a motion for summary judgment in EPIC v. DHS, No. 1:11-cv-00945-ABJ, a FOIA case against the Department of
Homeland Security for information about the planned expansion of the
body scanner program. EPIC has asked the court to force the agency
to disclose documents containing communications with Rapiscan and
other vendors about the deployment of mobile body scanners. EPIC has
already obtained hundreds of pages of documents
describing how the agency is exploring the use of body scanners on
people who travel by train, attend sporting events, enter federal
buildings, or travel along public highways. For more information, see: EPIC: Body Scanner Technology and EPIC: FOIA Note #20.

After extensive testing, Germany has decided not to deploy body scanners at the nation's airports. Germany field-tested the scanners with more than 800,000 passengers over ten months and concluded the devices produced too many false alarms and were not effective. In an interview with ABC News EPIC’s John Verdi said, "when they can't distinguish between body sweat and explosives, they aren’t making anyone safer." Italy also recently removed the scanners from airports after the Italian Civil Aviation Authority concluded that they were inaccurate and inconvenient. EPIC has petitioned a federal appeals court to rehear the organization's challenge to the controversial program, citing erroneous findings that the devices would detect liquid and powdered explosive. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

EPIC has obtained more than one hundred fifty pages of documents detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s development of mobile body scanners and other crowd surveillance technology. The documents were obtained as a result of a Freedom Information Act lawsuit brought by EPIC against the federal agency. According to the documents obtained by EPIC, vehicles equipped with mobile body scanners are designed to scan crowds and pedestrians on the street and can see through bags, clothing, and even other vehicles. The documents also reveal that the mobile backscatter machines cannot be American National Standards Institute “certified people scanners” because of the high level of radiation output and because subjects would not know they have been scanned. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of the Body Scanner Program).

Citing significant errors in an earlier decision, EPIC has petitioned a federal appeals court to rehear the organization's challenge to the TSA's controversial body scanner program. "The court overstated the effectiveness of the body scanner devices and understated the degree of the privacy intrusion to the travelling public," stated EPIC President Marc Rotenberg. EPIC's petition challenged the Court's finding that the devices detect “liquid and powders," which was never established and was not claimed by the government. EPIC also argued that the court wrongly concluded that the TSA is not subject to a federal privacy law that prohibits video voyeurism. The panel found that TSA body scanner employees are “engaged in law enforcement activity," contrary to the TSA's own regulations. EPIC is pursuing related litigation on the government's deployment of mobile body scanners. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

New documents released by the Department of Homeland Security to EPIC indicate the the agency continues to hide details about body scanners. In November 2010, EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency regarding the deployment of body scanners in surface transit and street-roving vans. In its latest document release the agency supplied several papers that were completely redacted. As a result of the agency's failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC has filed suit to force disclosure of the records. For more information, see: EPIC: Body Scanner Technology and EPIC: FOIA Note #20.

The Transportation Security Administration has begun training screeners at Logan International Airport in Boston to engage in behavioral profiling of air travelers. The program authorizes Transportation Security Officers to ask airline passengers personal questions concerning their travel plans and employment. Some travelers will be subjected to additional, invasive searches based on their responses. For more, see EPIC: Air Travel Privacy.

The TSA has announced that it will begin installing software on millimeter wave body scanners that will display a generic stick figure on a computer monitor and not the naked bodies of individual air travelers. The TSA said this will address privacy concerns. However, there is no plan to install similar software on the more widely used backscatter x-ray devices. It is also still unclear whether t the body scanners are capable of capturing, storing, or transferring the underlying graphic naked image. Seeking to answer this question, EPIC filed a lawsuit, following the TSA's failure to provide an adequate response to EPIC's FOIA request. For more information see: EPIC: Body Scanner Technology.

As a result of a lawsuit brought by EPIC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the TSA violated federal law when it installed body scanners in airports for primary screening across the country without first soliciting public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to provide notice and opportunity for comment when implementing a rule that affects the rights of the public. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Ginsburg found there was "no justification for having failed to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking," and said, "few if any regulatory procedures impose directly and significantly upon so many members of the public." EPIC's brief alleged that airport body scanners are "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective," and that the TSA's deployment of the devices for primary screening violated the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. Press Release.

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution that sets out strict safeguards for airport body scanners. The resolution requires that Member States only "deploy technology which is the least harmful for human health" and establish substantial privacy protection. The resolution prohibits the use of body scanners that use ionizing radiation. New guidelines also state that airport body scanners "must not have the capabilities to store or save data." EPIC currently is pursuing a lawsuit to suspend the use of body scanners in the United States, citing several federal laws and the US Constitution. EPIC has called the US airport body scanner program "invasive, ineffective, and unlawful." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

In a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has just obtained documents concerning the radiation risks of TSA's airport body scanner program. The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure. Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

The House has approved the 2012 budget for the Transportation Security Administration, cutting $270 million from the amount originally requested by the Agency. The cuts include $76 million that had been designated for the purchase of 275 airport body scanners. Leading lawmakers and activists have called attention to the health risks associated with the scanners, as well as their invasiveness. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticized the machines as “slow” and “ineffective.” Later this month, the Campaign for Liberty will host a Ban the Scan rally in New York that will feature anti-TSA activist and former Miss USA, Susie Castillo. The Campaign is working to eliminate body scanners in New York city. Rep. Chaffetz and Ms. Castillo will be among those honored at EPIC’s Annual Champion of Freedom Awards. For More Information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS: Suspension of Body Scanner Program.

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for unlawfully withholding documents concerning mobile body scanners. The mobile scanners can be used to monitor crowds, peering under clothes and inside bags. EPIC previously obtained documents describing the federal agency's plans to expand the use of these systems at railways, stadiums, and elsewhere. EPIC's suit asks a federal court to order disclosure of nearly 1,000 pages of additional records detailing the controversial program - records the agency has refused to make public. EPIC also has an ongoing lawsuit to suspend the controversial airport body scanner program. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS: Suspension of Body Scanner Program.

EPIC asked a federal court in Washington, DC to reconsider its earlier decision allowing the Department of Homeland Security to keep secret 2,000 airport body scanner images in EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The Court relied on a legal theory in its decision, "Exemption High b(2)," that was recently struck down by the Supreme Court in Navy v. Milner. In Milner, the Court held that FOIA exemption 2 only applies to records concerning employee relations and human resources issues. Milner overturns previous lower court decisions that applied the exemption to broader categories of records, allowing federal agencies to block disclosure of documents to the public. EPIC argues in its motion that the Department of Homeland Security is unlawfully withholding information about the airport scanners from the public. For more information, see EPIC-Milner v. Dept. of Navy and EPIC v. DHS - Body Scanners.

In a hearing before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, EPIC urged Congress to suspend the use of airport body scanners for primary screening. EPIC said the devices were not effective and were not minimally intrusive, as courts have required for airport searches. EPIC cited TSA documents obtained in EPIC's FOIA lawsuit which showed that the machines are designed to store and transfer images, and not designed to detect powdered explosives. EPIC was joined on the panel by radiation expert Dr. David Brenner, who has frequently pointed out the radiation risks created by these machines. The TSA, which is a federal agency funded by taxpayer dollars and responsible for the body scanner program, originally refused to testify at hearing. Eventually they showed up. Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who had previously sponsored a bill regarding body scanners, grilled the TSA officials and said the hearing would continue with more questions. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

The Department of Homeland Security told a federal court that the agency believes it has the legal authority to strip search every air traveler. The agency made the claim at oral argument in EPIC's lawsuit to suspend the airport body scanner program. The agency also stated that it believed a mandatory strip search rule could be instituted without any public comment or rulemaking. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg urged the Washington, DC appeals court to suspend the body scanner program, noting that the devices are "uniquely intrusive" and ineffective. EPIC's opening brief in the case states that the Department of Homeland Security "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history," and that such a change in policy demands that the TSA conduct a notice-and-comment rule making process. The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

On March 10, 2011, EPIC President Marc Rotenberg will present arguments against the TSA body scanner program before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. EPIC has said that body scanners are "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective," and that the TSA's deployment of the devices for primary screening violates the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes. EPIC's opening brief states that the Department of Homeland Security "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history." EPIC has also cited the agency's failure to respond to the First EPIC Petition and the Second EPIC Petition, widely supported by a broad coalition of organizations, which challenged the deployment of the devices and called for a public rule making. The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security released a report finding that the agency's contract files did not "contain[] sufficient evidence of justification and approval, market research, and acquisition planning" for the $1.3 billion dollars in noncompetitive contracts the agency entered into in fiscal year 2010. The noncompetitive process raises doubts that the agency secured the "best possible value" for the goods and services and that the contracts were awarded to "eligible and qualified vendors." The IG recommended that the agency’s Chief Procurement Officer pursue corrective action plans. EPIC previously criticized the agency’s contracting practices regarding whole body scanners. For related information see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS: Body Scanners (Suspend the Program) and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (FOIA).

Documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Department of Homeland Security has spent millions of dollars on mobile body scanner technology that could be used at railways, stadiums, and elsewhere. EPIC has already challenged the use of the devices in airports, calling them "invasive, ineffective, and unconstitutional." According to the documents obtained by EPIC, the federal agency plans to expand the use of these systems to monitor crowds, peering under clothes and inside bags away from airports. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has opposed an effort by the Transportation Security Administration to provide secret evidence to the court in EPIC's challenge to the the airport body scanner program. The TSA claimed that it can withhold documents that it has designated "Sensitive Security Information" and scientific studies because they are "copyrighted materials." EPIC responded that the TSA failed to establish that the documents are Sensitive Security Information, and also that the TSA cannot withhold materials in a judicial proceeding because they are subject copyright. The argument before the DC Circuit in the case is scheduled for March 10. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS: Body Scanners (Suspend the Program) and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (FOIA).

Senator Udall (D-NM) has introduced a Senate Amendment 51 that would require the Transportation Security Administration to install "Automatic Target Recognition" software in all body scanners by January 1, 2012. The technology creates a "generic image" of airline passengers instead of the "peep show" images now produced by TSA devices and viewed by TSA officials. The TSA recently announced that it will begin testing new software at select U.S. airports. However, the TSA has not resolved concerns about image retention, health risks, or the effectiveness of the procedures. EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the TSA for unlawfully withholding information about the body scanner technology. EPIC has a case in Federal Appellate court to suspend the use of the devices for primary screening in airports. For more information see EPIC - Whole Body Imaging Technology, EPIC - EPIC v. DHS (Suspend the program), EPIC - EPIC v. DHS (FOIA).

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the TSA for unlawfully withholding documents about software modifications to the Full-Body Scanners. EPIC submitted requests for these documents in June 2010 and October 2010. In response to mounting public criticism about the passenger screening program, the TSA recently announced that it would use "Automatic Target Recognition" software to mask the nude images of airline travelers that TSA officials currently view. However, documents obtained by EPIC in an earlier Freedom of Information Act lawsuit established that these procedures have the capability to store and record unfiltered images of passengers. EPIC has since filed a lawsuit to suspend the controversial screening program. The new case is EPIC v. Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 1:11-cv-00290. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

In response to widespread public opposition to airport body scanners, the TSA has announced that it will begin testing new body scanner software at select U.S. airports that it claims is less revealing. But the new scanners will also allow TSA officials to observe the passengers as they are being scanned. Previously, TSA operators were stationed in a remote viewing room. The TSA has also not resolved concerns about image retention, health risks, or the effectiveness of the procedures. In June 2010, EPIC submitted a FOIA request for information about the technology. The agency has yet to respond. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

A federal district court has granted the Department of Homeland Security's motion to conclude one of EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. EPIC was seeking more than 2,000 images generated by airport body scanners held by the TSA. The DHS objected to the disclosure and the court sided with the government. The court relied on a legal theory, "Exemption High (b)(2)" that is currently under review by the Supreme Court in Milner v. Dept. of Navy. As a result of this lawsuit, EPIC obtained many documents concerning the airport screening program, including Procurement Specifications, Operational Requirements, traveler complaints, and vendor contracts with L3 and Rapiscan, that were subsequently made available to the public. EPIC may appeal the district court's decision as to the release of the body scanner images. For more information see EPIC:EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Body Scanners. (Press Release)

EPIC has filed its reply brief in the suit to suspend the Department of Homeland Security's controversial airport body scanner program. The brief argues that "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers, the agency’s rule should be set aside and further deployment of the body scanners should be suspended." EPIC filed its opening brief on November 1, 2010, arguing that the body scanners are "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." On January 6, EPIC held a one-day public conference "The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures" in Washington, DC. Oral argument will be heard in the case on March 10. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral argument in EPIC's case, No. 10-1157, against the Department of Homeland Security. The court set a March 10, 2011 date for the parties to present oral argument before the Court. EPIC filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the body scanner program because it is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." In its opening brief, EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the Fourth Amendment. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

Evidence mounts that TSA’s whole-body scanners are not designed to detect powdered explosives or other low-density materials that pose a threat to airline safety. Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson’s new study finds that “Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosives with tapered edges difficult, if not impossible to detect.” Kaufman and Carlson’s study examined the imaging and device specifications of the backscatter machines to estimate the penetration and exposure to the body from the x-ray beam and the machines’ sensitivity to contraband. The authors’ study also echoes concerns about the health risks associated with the backscatter devices. EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the body scanner program because it is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has finalized a briefing schedule in EPIC's case, No. 10-1157, against the Department of Homeland Security. The court has set a December 23, 2010 deadline for the agency's brief and a January 6, 2011 deadline for EPIC's reply. Final briefs will be due on January 27, 2011. EPIC has filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the body scanner program because it is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." In its opening brief, EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the Fourth Amendment. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security, demanding that the agency turn over documents concerning the use of body scanner technology by law enforcement agencies in surface transit and street-roaming vans. EPIC cited previous DHS testing of body scanners on New Jersey's PATH trains and the development of street-roaming backscatter vans. EPIC has also filed a lawsuit to suspend body scanner program. EPIC has called the devices "invasive, inefffective, and unlawful." For more information, see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging
and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. The Zogby Poll is the most recent survey of American opinion on the new airport screening procedures. Combined with earlier polls by USA Today and the Washington Post-ABC News, the Zogby Poll reflects declining support for the TSA program.

EPIC is making available to the public today the report EPIC prepared in January 2010, following the release of documents from the DHS in an open government lawsuit. The analysis, based on the internal records obtained from the agency, reveals that the "device specifications, set out by the TSA, include the ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA...include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity that raise significant privacy and security concerns...include "super user" ("Level Z") status that allows the TSA itself to disable filters and to export raw images..." The EPIC memo states "Based on the materials received to date, EPIC concludes that further deployment and contracting for body scanners should be suspended until the privacy and security problems identified are adequately resolved." The documents were obtained in EPIC v. DHS (FOIA) EPIC has since filed papers in federal court to suspend the program. See EPIC v. DHS (body scanners).

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), two leading members of Congress, have sent a letter to TSA Administrator John S. Pistole, objecting to the new airport screening procedures. Reps. Thompson and Lee wrote, "we are concerned about new enhanced pat down screening protocols and urge you to reconsider utilization of these protocols." Reps. Thompson and Lee further said that "the TSA should have had a conversation with the American public" and should have ensured that "these changes do not run afoul of privacy and civil liberties." EPIC has filed a lawsuit against the TSA for failing to provide an opportunity for public comment, which is required by law, and implementing a screening procedure that violates privacy. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg has called the new screening procedures "invasive, unlawful, and ineffective." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records concerning radiation emissions and exposure associated with airport full body scanners. The Department recently implemented the scanners as a primary screening mechanism for all airline travelers. In August, many senators questioned the safety of the scanners. In September, Ralph Nader also sent a letter to the Senate expressing concern about radiation exposure. Earlier this year, EPIC requested DHS to release all information about radiation emissions. DHS failed to respond to EPIC's FOIA request and when DHS also failed to reply to EPIC's administrative appeal, EPIC filed a lawsuit in federal court. Earlier EPIC FOIA lawsuits uncovered evidence that body scanners can store and record images and that the Marshals Service had captured more than 35,000 images. For more information see, EPIC v. DHS (Body scanner images) and EPIC v. DOJ (Body scanner images).

Representative Ron Paul introduced a bill that would hold TSA agents legally accountable for airline screening procedures. Rep. Paul cited abusive screening procedures as the reason for the legislation, titled the American Traveler Dignity Act. In a floor speech, Representative Paul also endorsed National Opt-Out Day, a grassroots movement of passengers who plan to refuse the devices on November 24th. EPIC is suing in federal court to suspend the body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS.

In a motion filed in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to exclude religious objector Nadhira Al-Khalili from EPIC's body scanner lawsuit. Ms. Al-Khalili is Legal Counsel for the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the organizations that supported EPIC's petition, which is the basis for the challenge to the body scanner program. Ms. Al-Khalili's claims are based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Islamic modesty requirements. EPIC has opposed the government's motion and stated that the agency is "simply afraid to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims heard by this Court." EPIC further argued that "Respondents hope by seeking to exclude Ms. Al- Khalili . . . they will avoid judicial scrutiny of an agency practice that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion in violation of federal law." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Emergency Stay, Body Scanners) and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said today, "The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately. We've reached a point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us." Mr. Hinkle expressed support for the EPIC lawsuit aimed at suspending the body scanner program. Mr. Hinkle further said, "We encourage Americans to call their newly-elected members of Congress and tell them that they don't want this expensive, worthless, intrusive, unconstitutional program." The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS.

EPIC has filed the opening brief in EPIC v. DHS, No, 10-1157, a case that challenges the unilateral decision of the TSA to make body scanners the primary screening technique in U.S. airports. Three frequent air travelers are joining EPIC in the lawsuit: security expert Bruce Schneier, human rights activist Chip Pitts, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations legal counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili. The Petitioners have brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. The Petitioners are seeking the suspension of the body scanner program. In its brief, EPIC argues that the Department of Homeland Security "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history." EPIC further argues that the Transportation Security Administration "must comply with relevant law, and it must not be permitted to engage in such a fundamental change in agency practice without providing the public the opportunity to express its views." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS and EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology. UPDATE: Read EPIC's press release here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set a briefing schedule for EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157, EPIC's challenge to the airport body scanner program. EPIC has alleged that that the Department of Homeland Security has violated three federal laws (the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and that the body scanner search itself is unconstitutional, given what the courts have said about the permissible scope of airport screening procedures. EPIC's initial brief will be due November 1, 2010. Subsequent briefs from DHS and EPIC will be due by December 15, 2010. In earlier open government litigation against DHS, EPIC obtained evidence that the devices are designed to store and record images. For more information, see EPIC - EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

EPIC has filed an appeal with the Transportation Security Administration, challenging the agency's denial of expedited processing and fee waivers for an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request. EPIC's is seeking documents from the TSA concerning full body scanner radiation risks and testing. EPIC challenged the TSA's denial of expedited processing, arguing that by delaying to release of the records, the agency was risking the health of travelers and its own employees. EPIC also argued that the record request was particularly timely, as three US Senators recently wrote to the Department of Homeland Security about the safety of the airport body scanners and the risk to air travelers. Separately, EPIC has urged a federal court to suspend the program, pending an independent review of the health risks and privacy impact. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS (suspension of program).

The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, along with four other Senators, have sent a letter to the head of the US Marshal Service to ask why the federal agency stored more than 35,000 images from whole body imaging scans taken at the Orlando federal courthouse. The letter follows a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed by EPIC, in which the Marshal Service was forced to disclose the fact that it had stored body scanner images. EPIC has also filed an emergency motion in federal court to suspend the program, pending a thorough review of the airport body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

Three U.S. Senators have objected to the Department of Homeland Security's expansion of the airport body scanner program. In a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Senators Collins (R-ME), Burr (R-NC), and Coburn (R-OK) have asked "why the Department continues to purchase this technology when legitimate concerns about its safety appear to remain unanswered." The Senators noted that "the issue of radiation associated with the backscatter x-ray AIT machines has not been adequately addressed by TSA." They urged the agency's Chief Medical Officer, working with independent experts, to conduct a review of the health effects on travelers and airport personnel. EPIC recently submitted a FOIA request to the DHS for all records of tests conducted by the agency regarding radiation impacts. EPIC has also filed an emergency motion in federal court to suspend the program, pending an thorough review of the airport body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

On July 20, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security announced a substantial change in the deployment of body scanners in US airports. According to the DHS Secretary, the devices, which had once been part of a pilot program for seconary screening, will now be deployed in 28 additional airports. The devices are designed to capture and store photographic images of naked air travelers. EPIC has filed an emergency motion in federal court, urging the suspension of the program and citing violations of several federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment. Public opposition to the program is also growing. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS (Body scanners) and EPIC Body Scanners.

Today, EPIC filed a reply in its case against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC v. DHS,10-1157. EPIC had previously filed a petition and motion for emergency stay, asking the court to suspend the use of the machines. EPIC argued that the use of body scanners for primary screening in U.S. airports violates several federal laws and the Fourth Amendment. In its reply to the government's motion, EPIC also cited the growing public opposition to the program, the decision of major airports not to use body scanners, as well as the agency's failure to adequately address Constitutional concerns. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS.

Today EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security for studies conducted by the agency and third parties concerning radiation and health testing of body scanners. The EPIC request follows a recent report by Dr. David Brenner to the Congressional Biomedical Caucus that radiation exposure may be up to twenty times greater than the DHS acknowledged. In April 2010, several scientists urged Presidential Science Adviser Dr. John P. Holdren to conduct further evaluation of the health risks of body scanners. EPIC is pursuing FOIA litigation against the DHS regarding full body scanners, and has also filed a lawsuit to halt the use of the devices. For more information, see: EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS.

Senators Klobuchar (D-MN) and Bennett (R-UT) have introduced a bill that would mandate the deployment of full body scanners in US airports. The bill would make Full Body Scanners the primary screening technique. The bill would provide for an alternative screening method for passengers with "privacy concerns." The bill contains particularly weak privacy provision that ignore many of the problems with the devices already uncovered. In 2008, the House passed legislation to prevent the use of body scanners as primary screening devices. Documents later obtained by EPIC established that the TSA required that Full Body Scanner have the ability to store, record, and transfer detailed images of naked air travelers. EPIC has recently filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security to require that the program be suspended, pending an independent review. For more information, see: EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS.

Today EPIC filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the TSA's full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom. EPIC, and more than two dozens organizations, previously petitioned the agency for a public rulemaking, which the TSA disregarded. EPIC has also testified in Congress about the problems with the body scanner program. Members of the Senate, Ralph Nader, and European officials have also expressed concern. The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners.

A report prepared for the European Parliament and the European Council on the controversial proposal to deploy body scanners at European airports warns of "a serious risk of fragmenting fundamental rights of EU citizens, impeding their rights of free movement, and escalating their health concerns related to new security technologies." The report recommends common European standards to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and to address health concerns. The report also recommends security scanners that are less intrusive and pose fewer health risks than those currently deployed in US airports. Earlier this year, EPIC and Ralph Nader urged President Obama to suspend the airport body scanner program until "a comprehensive evaluation of the devices' effectiveness, health impacts, and privacy safeguards is completed by an independent board of review." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging.

In a May 28, 2010 letter to a coalition of organizations, the Transportation Security Administration defended its use of full body scanner machines. The Agency claimed that the machines are safe, effective, and do not violate existing statutes or impermissibly infringe on Americans' Constitutional Rights. This letter is a response to an April 21, 2010 petition in which EPIC and 30 organizations urged the TSA to suspend the full body scanner program due to Constitutional, statutory, health, and effectiveness concerns. In 2009, the organizations petitioned the agency to undertake a formal request for public comments. The agency never acted on the request. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security.

EPIC and a broad coalition of organizations sent a formal petition to the Department of Homeland Security to demand that the agency suspend the airport body scanner program. The petition states that the "uniquely intrusive search" is unreasonable and violates the Constitution. The petition further states the program fails to comply with several federal laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Administrative Procedures Act. The petitioners also argue that the machines are ineffective and that there are better, less costly security technology. The petitioners contend that the TSA has routinely misled the pubic about the ability of the devices to store and transmit detailed images of travelers' naked bodies. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has already obtained technical documents, vendor contracts, and hundreds of traveler complaints. EPIC is seeking additional documents. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained hundreds of pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security about the plan to deploy full body scanners in US airports. A letter to EPIC reveals that the government agency possesses about 2,000 body scanner photos from devices that the DHS said earlier "could not store or record images." EPIC has also obtained the most recent device procurement specifications, and several hundred new pages of traveler complaints. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging and EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security.

Three United States Senators have written a letter to Secretary Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security, urging the Department to reconsider the whole body scanners currently planned for U.S. airports. Senators Collins (R-ME), Kyl (R-AZ), and Chambliss (R-GA) encouraged Secretary Napolitano to consider "auto-detection" devices instead of human screeners to address privacy concerns. The Senators noted that the current technology allows airport officials to "view detailed images of passengers’ bodies" and also that other systems could "save the government and airports money on physical space for screening." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

A meeting between top United States counter-terrorism officials and European counterparts ended in Madrid today with no agreement to restart a program that gave the US access to European financial data. The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
operated in secret from 2001 to 2006. European legislators objected to the program as a violation of EU privacy law. There also appeared to be no EU support for the further deployment of body scanners in European airports. EPIC has raised several objections to the body scanner program, including a letter with Ralph Nader to the administration, Congressional Testimony, and open government litigation, which revealed that the devices store and record images. For more information, see EPIC International Privacy Standards, EPIC Lisbon Treaty, EPIC Body Scanners.

In response to a Congressional inquiry, led by Congressman Bennie Thompson, the Transportation Security Agency acknowledged that images on body scanner machines would be recorded for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The TSA also did not dispute that test mode could be activated in airports, but said this "would" not happen. As part of an ongoing lawsuit, EPIC had previously obtained TSA documents describing the machines' capabilities to store and transmit detailed images of travelers' naked bodies. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

Civil liberties, consumer rights, air travel, and religious organizations have asked President Obama to "suspend the further deployment of body scanners in US airports." The organizations said that the scanners are "contributing to a negative perception of the United States" and noted the "sincerely held religious opposition to the digital undressing of air travelers by TSA officials." For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging, Stop Digital Strip Searches, and Privacy Coalition.

The Idaho House of Representatives has voted to limit use of digital strip search machines. The 58-9 vote sends Bill 573 to the Idaho Senate, which will vote on the anti-body scanner measure. The bill would bar body scanners as primary screening, require security officers to offer an alternative search, and mandate an independent investigation into the scanners' health risks. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Phil Hart, said “It’s my opinion that the use of these devices to screen every individual would be an unreasonable search of those persons." For more, see EPIC Whole Body Imaging and EPIC Travel Privacy.

In testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, EPIC President Marc Rotenberg urged Congress to halt the plan to deploy body scanners in the nation's airports. "Based on the documents we've obtained, the views of experts, the concerns of American, and the extraordinary cost, Congress should suspend the program," said Mr. Rotenberg. In a recent letter to President Obama, EPIC and Ralph Nader recommended an independent review to assess health impacts, privacy safeguards, and the actual effectiveness of the devices. Through FOIA litigation, EPIC has obtained technical specifications, vendor contracts, and hundreds of complaints from US air travelers about the body scanners (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5). A recent report from the GAO has also raised questions about the effectiveness and cost of the devices. For more information, see EPIC Whole Body Imaging and EPIC Air Travel Privacy.

In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released more documents about body scanners in US airports. The documents include many complaints from travelers who went through the devices. Travelers reported that they were not told about the pat down alternative or that they were going to be subject to a body scan by TSA officials. Travelers also expressed concern about radiation risks to pregnant women and the image capture of young children without clothes. EPIC has previously obtained whole body imaging vendor contracts, operational requirements, and procurement specifications from TSA. EPIC and Ralph Nader have urged President Obama to suspend the program until an independent review is completed. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report regarding the deployment of body scanners. The GAO cited its 2009 recommendations to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA): that the TSA conduct operational tests to ensure that the whole body imaging machines are reliable, and the that TSA conduct an assessment of the whole body imaging machines' vulnerabilities. In its latest report, the GAO warned TSA of the importance of full operational tests, citing the puffer machine debacle as an example of the government waste that results from insufficient operational testing. The GAO also expressed concern over TSA's lack of complete risk assessments and inability to "provide documentation to show how they have addressed the concerns raised in the 2009 GAO report regarding the susceptibility of the technology to terrorist tactics." Because of this, the GAO concluded that it is unclear whether the body scanners or other technologies would have detected the weapon used in the December 25 attempted attack. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners.

In a letter to the White House, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and EPIC President Marc Rotenberg have asked President Obama to suspend the deployment of body imaging devices until "a comprehensive evaluation of the devices' effectiveness, health impacts, and privacy safeguards is completed by an independent board of review." Mr. Nader and Mr. Rotenberg point to a recent workshop at which experts noted that the devices are ineffective, that health risks have not been assessed, and that the TSA has misrepresented the privacy safeguards. They also said that air travelers subject to secondary screening who are actually familiar with the capabilities of body scanners would prefer a pat-down search to a body scan for both privacy and religious reasons. European governments are currently undertaking a three-month review of the body scanner proposal. For more information see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging.

Today the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL) and EPIC hosted an event: “Airport Body Scanners Under the Microscope: Not Such a Pretty Picture.” The event featured keynote speeches by Ralph Nader and Marc Rotenberg, president of EPIC. The event also included two panels, the first of which focused on the problems with body scanners, and the second of which dealt with the political opportunities that exist to combat the widespread utilization of the scanners. The event included talks by experts on radiation, airport security, religious and constitutional ramifications of whole body imaging, and the international response to whole body imaging machines. EPIC Staff Counsel, Ginger McCall, discussed documents that EPIC recently received that reveal that the machines can store and transmit images. Katitiza Rodriguez, director of EPIC’s International Privacy Project, discussed the EU’s decision to postpone the use of these machines until a full privacy and health risk assessment can be completed. For more information see: EPIC: Whole Body Imaging.

On January 19, EPIC filed comments with the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), urging the agency to “to revise its establishment of the Global Entry program and to reconsider the privacy and security implications of the program.” CBP proposed to make permanent the Global Entry program, under which pre-registered international travelers can bypass conventional security lines by scanning their passports and fingerprints at a kiosk, answering customs declaration questions, and then presenting a receipt to Customs officials. EPIC urged CBP to ensure that Global Entry complied with the Privacy Act and to conduct a separate Privacy Impact Assessment. Those measures are particularly pressing in light of recent problems, including data breaches and bankruptcy, experienced by “Clear,” a similar registered traveler program. In 2005, EPIC testified before Congress that the absence of Privacy Act safeguards for registered traveler programs would jeopardize air traveler privacy and security. For more information, see EPIC Global Entry, EPIC Air Travel Privacy, EPIC Biometric Identifiers, EPIC Automated Targeting System, and EPIC Whole Body Imaging.

EU President Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba announced today that European countries would not rush to install body scanners as the United States has urged. He said that there will first be studies to determine whether the devices "are effective, do not harm health, and do not violate privacy." The European countries have agreed that they will adopt a unified position on the body scanner proposal. European Minister Viviane Reding stated that "Europe's need for security cannot justify an invasion of privacy. Our citizens are not objects: they are human beings." Previous post-9/11 disputes between the US and the EU have involved the transfer of Passenger Name Records and financial information. The European position in the current dispute is strengthened by the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the entry into force of the Charter of Fundmental Rights. EPIC has scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club on January 25 on "Body Scanners and Privacy.” For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology.

The Transportation Security Administration has replied to the Privacy Coalition statement on whole body imaging systems. The agency claims that the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) provides adequate protection. The Privacy Coalition letter pointed out that "the devices are designed to capture, record, and store detailed images of individuals undressed" and said that "If the public understood this, they would be outraged by the use of these devices by the US government on US citizens." The Privacy Coalition said that the use of the devices should be suspended pending an investigation. The letter was prompted by the TSA's announcement that Whole Body Imaging would replace metal detectors as the primary screening technique at US airports. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would establish clear privacy safeguards for the devices. See also EPIC's page on Whole Body Imaging.

EPIC announced a national campaign today to suspend the use of "Whole Body Imaging" -- devices that photograph American air travellers stripped naked in US airports. The campaign responds to a policy reversal by the TSA which would now make the the "virtual strip search" mandatory, instead of voluntary as originally announced. EPIC and others say that there are inadequate safeguards to prevent the misuse of the images. They are asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to suspend the program and to allow for public comment. For more information, see EPIC's Backscatter X-ray, Whole Body Imaging page.

As part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained documents which establish that the TSA required the machines to be capable of storing, recording, and transferring detailed images of naked air travelers. EPIC also obtained hundreds of pages of traveler complaints, which described the invasive program and the lack of proper signage and information regarding the machines. The complaints establish the agency had been denying air travelers alternative screening opportunities.

The images captured by body scanner devices can uniquely identify individual air travelers. The TSA uses body scanners to search air travelers as they pass through the TSA's airport security checkpoints. The TSA began using body scanners for primary screening in 2009.

EPIC's 2010 Lawsuit

On July 2, 2010, EPIC sued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the TSA's unilateral decision to make body scanners the primary screening technique in U.S. airports. Three frequent air travelers joined EPIC in the lawsuit: security expert Bruce Schneier, human rights activist Chip Pitts, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili. The Petitioners brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC sought the suspension of the body scanner program, pending independent review and public notice and comment rulemaking.

Procedural History

EPIC petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of three DHS actions: one failure to act, one agency Order, and one agency Rule of the TSA, a DHS component. The Petitioners filed a motion for emergency stay, urging the Court to shut down the program as soon as possible in order to prevent irreparable harm to American travelers. On July 15, 2010, the DHS filed a brief in opposition to EPIC's motion. On July 20, 2010, EPIC filed a reply to the opposition. On September 1, 2010, the Court ordered the motion be denied, and set out the briefing schedule.

On November 1, 2010, EPIC filed its opening brief, arguing that the DHS "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history." EPIC further argued that the agency "must comply with relevant law, and it must not be permitted to engage in such a fundamental change in agency practice without providing the public the opportunity to express its views."

On November 5, 2010, the DHS moved to exclude religious objector Nadhira Al-Khalili from the lawsuit. Ms. Al-Khalili was Legal Counsel for the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the organizations that supported EPIC's petition, which was the basis for the challenge to the body scanner program. Ms. Al-Khalili's claims were based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Islamic modesty requirements. EPIC opposed the government's motion and stated that the agency is "simply afraid to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims heard by this Court." EPIC further argued that "Respondents hope by seeking to exclude Ms. Al- Khalili . . . they will avoid judicial scrutiny of an agency practice that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion in violation of federal law."

On December 23, 2010, DHS filed an answer brief, again urging the Court to exclude Nadhira al-Khalili as a religious objector in the suit. Respondents also asserted that the body scanner program was not substantial enough of a change in agency policy to constitute a "rule" under the Administrative Procedures Act. EPIC previously argued that the body scanner program was "the single most significant change in air traveler screening in the United States since the creation of the agency," adding that the agency has considered far less significant changes to be rules, including policies relating to butane lighters and transportation worker identity documents.

On January 6, 2011, EPIC filed a reply brief, arguing that "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers, the agency's rule should be set aside and further deployment of the body scanners should be suspended." On the same day, EPIC hosted a one-day public conference "The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security Procedures" in Washington, DC.

The D.C. Circuit held oral argument in the case was held on March 10, 2011. The court issued its opinion on July 15, 2011, ruling for EPIC on the APA claim and ordering the agency to promptly conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.

EPIC's 2016 Lawsuit

On May 2, 2016, EPIC filed a petition for review of the TSA's final body scanner rule: 81 Fed. Reg. 11,364 (Mar. 3, 2016). The case was consolidated with another petition filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The agency initially filed a motion for leave to file portions of the administrative record ex parte and under seal, which EPIC opposed in part. EPIC and CEI filed initial briefs at the end of September 2016. A group of civil rights organizations filed an amicus brief in support of EPIC and CEI in October 2016. The Government filed its respondent brief in November 2016, and EPIC filed the reply brief in December 2016. The D.C. Circuit scheduled oral argument for April 7, 2017. Legal documents are available here.